Ed,
First I do appreciate the ARRL efforts, it's not a easy task for sure.
I've been a member for over 50 years. The ARRL is our only voice in Washington
and we should support it.
However, there's no way I can see working around noise problems in a city or
suburban area where we/I have to deal with multiple noises and sources. It's a
nightmare situation as far as RFI goes.
It's sort of funny, but I remember a time when hams were getting into TV's big
time and it didn't take too much effort for the TV watcher to get some response
from the FCC, even to the point of requiring the ham operator to maintain
"quiet hours". The burden of responsibility was on the Ham operator to clean
up his station so as not to interfere with TV watching, remember the 15 Mc
IF's? Up until a few years ago, I can remember the FCC actually visiting ham
radio stations here in the metro area and inspecting the operations. One ham
was only about 2 miles from me.
The plasma noise here yesterday was horrendous. They must have moved the TV or
changed something. I have my outside lights on a X10 system and it was wiping
that out too so I couldn't turn on the outside lighting. I'm going to
cautiously approach the neighbors when I get a chance and see if they'll allow
me to try a 2.4 inch #31 mix choke per K9YC's manual and see if that has any
impact on it. When this happens is up in the air. They're nice folks, but
again I hate to impose.
Now, lets say I have 3 or 4 plasmas all around the neighborhood, plus a grow
light operation, a crappy computer switcher and a noisy light dimmer, can you
imagine the situation in trying to clean that up, yeah right.
That crackpot ham up the street is complaining about our TV set, pool heater
and kitchen lights of all things! The nerve…!!
I think bureaucracies, politics and concern for profits have bogged down the
whole process.
73
Dale, k9vuj
On 02, Apr 2014, at 17:58, "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
> I can shed a bit more light on this, I think.
>
> Many hams have an image of something that has never existed on a regular
> basis -- the thought that if they had interference, they could call the FCC,
> which would quickly send out a team to find the source of the noise. This
> has never happened on any regular basis and is less likely to happen now.
>
> Under the FCC's rules, manufacturers of equipment are required to meet
> certain emissions-limit and labeling requirements. If the manufacturer does,
> it may market its products. Under these rules, most non-radio devices, other
> than personal computers, are "Verified" under Part 15 or Part 18 FCC rules,
> meaning that the manufacturer is required to test them, and to keep test
> results on file if ever asked for by the FCC. There are generally higher
> limits for commercial products than consumer products, and all sellers and
> marketers of products are required to market them into appropriate
> environments.
>
> If these rules are met, the operators of devices, ie your electric utility,
> your neighbor, or even you, are required to use them in a way that does not
> cause harmful interference to licensed radio users.
>
> Hams can get some support from the FCC, but generally only if the ham is able
> to identify what the actual source of a product is and who is operating it.
> The ARRL and FCC have, over years of time, developed a cooperative program
> where the FCC will generally ask the ARRL to help with a case, helping to
> determine what the source is, who is operating it and whether its noise is
> actually causing "harmful interference" as defined by the FCC's rules. The
> FCC does expect that hams will make reasonable efforts to resolve problems
> with the operator of the device directly, before asking the FCC for help. If
> these efforts are not successful, ARRL has been asked to help document the
> case history and gte the case to the FCC, which after its own review, usually
> sends an advisory letter to the operator of the device. The ARRL "power
> line" program is also used by the FCC as the first steps of a case involving
> a neighbor. See the various links under
> http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-freq
> uency-devices for more information.
>
> ARRL also does what it can to try to address problems directly with industry.
> It has contacts in the cable industry and with a number of major
> manufacturers, such as AT&T, to deal with UVerse problems, for example. ARRL
> also sits on a number of major industry committees, keeping a seat at these
> important tables for Amateur Radio, often serving at the head of the table in
> leadership roles. At this point, for example, I serve on the Board of
> Directors of the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society, as a current
> member of the EMC Society Standards Development and Education Committee, as
> past Secretary of that committee and as the current Vice Chair of the ANSI
> accredited C63 Committee's subcommittee on device immunty, for example.
> Although this work does not always result in Amateur Radio getting a pristine
> noise environment, it does ensure that industry is well aware of the needs of
> Amateur Radio, and that Amateur Radio is a part of the process. This has
> often serves us all
> well, as seen in the recent study of arc-fault-current-inturrupter circuit
> breakers, where the manufacturer was very open ARRL in part because of the
> League's involvement with industry. The result was a site visit by the
> manufacturer, joint testing and a re-design of its products to no longer trip
> in the presence of typical Amateur signals.
>
> ARRL has been buying and testing various products, finding significant
> violations of the FCC limits. Unfortunately, the limits are rather high.
> This means that a "legal" device in the house next door, perhaps 100 feet
> away, could generate S7 to S9 noise on HF. So, the large majority of devices
> the League has tested have actually met the emissions limits. The
> interference was then addressed on the basis of harmful interfence.
>
> ARRL does have to make some judgment calls about what products to buy and
> test, because of limited resources, especially staff time. So we look for
> the VERY loud noise, such as grow lights, some battery chargers and the like,
> then make purchases based on specific complaints in which the offending model
> numbers can be identified. We are looking more to the items sold in the big
> box stores, instead of the occasional eBay seller. To that end, we need good
> reports that are based on an actual complaint, with a model still in
> production and being sold. We can then do as we did with the grow lights and
> other products along the way and file formal complaints the FCC. The
> interference from the eBay item or the 1950s lighting fixture can still be
> addressed as an individual complaint.
>
> In other cases, ARRL does take a broader approach. When CFLs and LED bulbs
> came on the scene, the posts about the doom of Amateur Radio were rampant,
> and to assess the problem, ARRL purchased a large number of products and
> measured them. As predicted, most complied, although a few problems were
> identified.
>
> What the majority of the reports ARRL gets, however, involve an "unknown
> source." At that point for the most part, trying to identify WHAT is is
> becomes moot unless the ham can figure out where it is. Without an
> indentified device operator or model number, the only recourse is to find the
> actual source and work with a neighbor, then with the ARRL and FCC, to try to
> get it resolved.
>
> I hope this is all helpful.
>
> 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
> ARRL Lab Manager
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Silver, Ward, N0AX
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 10:10 AM
> To: rfi@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC..
>
> I think Kim has it right here, contrasting PROACTIVE with REACTIVE. When we
> identify screwed-up equipment like ballasts and wireless cameras and that
> sort of thing with a very specific problem and tied to specific models and
> manufacturers, it's straightforward for the FCC to deal with the problem in a
> limited and bounded way, and they usually do. That's why documented evidence
> is so important in supporting any kind of regulatory action. But just
> railing against classes of devices creating interference is going to go
> nowhere at the agency level, regardless of what the regulations may say or
> imply.
>
>> You must clearly understand what Ward was told. It punts to "no
>> additional funding for PROACTIVE RFI enforcement," NOT "no funds for RFI
>> enforcement." The > FCC has finding only for reactive RFI enforcement, not
>> proactive RFI enforcement. Do the have authority? Yes. Do they have the
>> ability to exercise it in proactive manner? No.
>
>> What's the solution? Funding and spending authority. Kim N5OP
>
> Exactly. The FCC currently has no congressional mandate to go out and
> aggressively hassle importers about interference-related issues. There is no
> reason or incentive for them to pick a fight with industry lobbyists over
> interference to us. We will be far better off to continue to make
> well-documented cases contesting specific types and instances of interference
> in order to support the general case when an opportunity presents itself to
> do so. That is why it's important to support spectrum defense efforts and
> why the ARRL Lab's traceable, calibrated work on RFI is so valuable. A solid
> technical case was the foundation for the ARRL being able to prevail on the
> merits of the BPL case.
>
> There will eventually be some recognition by both industry and regulators
> that the RF spectrum is not an infinite ocean into which electromagnetic
> pollution can be harmlessly dumped. That day is not here yet - it usually
> takes some kind of spectacular incident to get and hold the necessary
> attention to achieve a response. In the meantime, document problems and
> solutions, educate your representatives (and
> neighbors) about the technical issues and the need for regulatory oversight,
> and support organizations such as the ARRL in their efforts to develop and
> sustain the necessary body of technical work.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|